The low climate sensitivity story has found its way to the Antipodes, where the Australian has picked up on the Economist's article and also quotes David Whitehouse on the warming plateau:

DEBATE about the reality of a two-decade pause in global warming and what it means has made its way from the sceptical fringe to the mainstream.

In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity - the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels - would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded.

I notice that Tom Chivers has linked approvingly to the Economist article as well. There's a change in the air.

The timing of this publication may be useful for the upcoming elections (I seem to recall that they are later this year, possibly in September). It may assist those seeking a repeal of the carbon tax which tax will be a significant drag on the Australian economy.

So what happens when/if the warming plateau continues for another 10, 20 or 30 years? Are we going to have Hansen and others continue to argue the plateau is merely continuing to mask the real underlying catastrophic warming?

Given that Hansen et al failed to "predict" the current standstill in their models why should we give them any attention when they continue to bark at the moon like little puppy dogs?

Surely their own work has ready done the job of discrediting them better than any debunking by sceptics?

It's a change in the 'airwaves' we need. Until there is a seismic shift in the BBC's reporting, the war is not over. There was an item on the World Service, last night, talking about a rooftop solar scheme about to be tested in Sydney (?) in order to mitigate the record increase in CO2. All because 'scientists' believe it may be causing global warming. I thought the science was 'settled'?

So, climate sensitivity on negative watch and a new report from the University of Oslo (to be published in the next few weeks) has come to a similar conclusion to the two researchers from University of Washington-Seattle (that man's 20th c. contribution may have been overstated by a factor of two).

Die Welt mentions the forthcoming Oslo report in the last para of this article:

Climate psientists say"The cold that Europe is currently experiencing is due to a warm Arctic and melting sea ice"Joe Bloggs points out that Europe also had cold winters in the 1960/70s when the Arctic was cold and sea ice levels were high.

James Hansen says "burning coal is slowing global warming".Is this the same psientist who famously stated; "The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death"?

I could go on, ad infinitum and ad nauseam, with these examples of mutual contraction and cognitive dissonance.

The trouble with climate psience is it tries (and fails) to be a theory of everything. Such theories of everything are usually referred to as "religion".

Elections coming up in Australia. Rumour has it that some politicians don't always make strenuous efforts to deliver on all of their pre-election promises.

In slightly different circumstances George Bush Senior reportedly said "Read my lips: No more taxes". It was pointed out later that he actually said "No new taxes", and then merely increased an old tax.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP9_kkzfN-w

As I understand it, Australians currently have a government led by Julia Gillard. Before the last election she explicitly said she would not introduce a carbon tax. After gaining power with the help of the Greenshirts she introduced a carbon tax.

The human race is prone to global scares and panics. They have been going on since the dawn of recorded history - and probably before that. The classic book on the subject is Charles Mackay's 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds' (1841). In it he says:

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds , while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one...."

It will be instructive to watch the recovery from this scare (which is nothing new), and compare it to Mackay's earlier work. I expect to see journalists passing through the following scenario:

1 - AGW is true, and anyone who doubts this is mad or a rogue.2 - AGW is true, but there are some mistaken contradictory voices3 - AGW is the subject of much discussion4 - We reveal that AGW is wrong, as we said all along!

TBYJ:" My list of Predictions for 2013 is looking pretty strong, I'd say we almost have no 1. in the bag."

I said a tearful goodbye to you only a week ago, now you're back! I know it's like giving up smoking, easy in the abstract and unbelievably hard in the implementation.

Agree with forecasts, but think more than one will change sides, but mostly from the current silent majority, not those at the centre, who are, by and large, green activists, or their fellow travellers. If this swings against them they're in deep doo doo, so they'll hang on and hope they can see it through. A bit like Hitler in the bunker, aware defeat is on its way, but waiting for a miracle.

From the article in The Australian: "International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years "at least" to break the long-term warming trend."

I've seen this claim before. Does anyone know what it is based on? A peer-reviewed paper? Or is it just speculation by a railroad engineer?

thedukeIt's based on smoke, mirrors, peas under thimbles and a mathematical trick.As someone pointed out recently while in your 20s you are taller (on average) than in either previous decade this does not mean that you will be even taller in your 30s, 40s and 50s.The fact that 2001-10 was warmer than 1991-2000 was warmer than 1981-90 does not necessarily tell us a great deal about 2011-20. Pachauri may well be correct in what he says but only because it will take that long for the trend (not the temperatures themselves) to start turning down and anyway it depends on where you choose to start from.The danger is that the AGW believers will be so reluctant to let go of their comfort blankets that the rest of us could well be freezing to death while they still tell us (truthfully) that the trend is still up.My first boss used to say that percentage profit was all very well but he liked to see some cash because that was what the garage asked for when they put petrol in his car. Likewise it's the here and now temperature (not a "trend" or an "anomaly" that tells you when it's time to put another log on the fire!

From the article in The Australian: "International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years "at least" to break the long-term warming trend."

I've seen this claim before. Does anyone know what it is based on? A peer-reviewed paper? Or is it just speculation by a railroad engineer?

It's based very firmly and accurately on economics and actuarial estimates of lifetime duration. Pauchari is now about 70. In order to encourage people to keep paying his pension and maintain him in the style to which he has become accustomed, this scam must retain credibility until he is, let us say, 100. That's 30 years - 40 if you assume that the last 10 years count.

And you were all thinking it had something to do with climate physics...!

"I suppose the question I would ask Pauchari is this: what if we experience ten years of cooling in immediate future? What would that tell us about AGW theory?"========

It's very good. These are minor fluctuations, fully accounted for by the theory. All the world's leading climate scientists are agreed on this. If you don't agree with it, you can't be one of the world's leading climate scientists. There is most certainly no reason for a panicky about turn based on Voodoo science.

Well what would you expect Pachauri, the IPCC, DECC, or any of the others who suck at this particular tit to say?

Climate psientists say"The cold that Europe is currently experiencing is due to a warm Arctic and melting sea ice"Joe Bloggs points out that Europe also had cold winters in the 1960/70s when the Arctic was cold and sea ice levels were high.

Mar 30, 2013 at 11:32 AM | Don Keiller

Reasonably heavy falls of snow were also common during the 1950s. Children in the south of England and the coastal areas of South Wales got much more use out of sledges then than children in the 1990s. Going back just a little bit further, the winter of 1947 was very severe, like that of 1962/63.

If global warming, or man-made climate change (whatever you want to call it) is responsible for recent cold winters what was responsible for those of 1947 and 1962/63?

Climate psientists say"The cold that Europe is currently experiencing is due to a warm Arctic and melting sea ice"Joe Bloggs points out that Europe also had cold winters in the 1960/70s when the Arctic was cold and sea ice levels were high.

Mar 30, 2013 at 11:32 AM | Don Keiller

Reasonably heavy falls of snow were also common during the 1950s. Children in the south of England and the coastal areas of South Wales got much more use out of sledges then than children in the 1990s. Going back just a little bit further, the winter of 1947 was very severe, like that of 1962/63.

If global warming, or man-made climate change (whatever you want to call it) is responsible for recent cold winters what was responsible for those of 1947 and 1962/63?

Thanks for all the wonderfully comic answers to my question. As I suspected, Pauchari is talking out of his ass. If we have a decade of cooling it will probably mean that AGW based on CO2 emissions will be consigned to the junk heap of historic scientific illusions.

"I suppose the question I would ask Pauchari is this: what if we experience ten years of cooling in immediate future? What would that tell us about AGW theory?"========

It's a fair question, and has been asked before and will be dodged in the same way.The answers will always amount to essentially the same viz: ["with translations"]

1) There will always be brief dips on the inexorably rising trend .["Just as it has been since the depths of the ice age. No one will remember that."]

2) The models have predicted the downturns as well as the up. ["When the observations falsify the theory, we always 'tweak' the models to MAKE the new hind-casts fit the data, moron" ]

3) Don't be lulled into a false sense of security. The warming will return with a vengeance in the future. ["Poor fool. We can adjust the data too, if needed."]

4) All the scientists and peer-reviewed literature are in agreement with this view. ["I AM the senate."]

5) Pay no attention to the people with questionable motives who cast ill-informed doubts on the science.["The rebellion will be crushed."]

6) The models are robust. We must act now; or pay the price for our lack of vision. ["Your feeble skills are no match for the power of the dark side."]

More seriously, the edifice may stand a lot longer if predictions can be given every appearance of matching reported reality. To that end, those skilled in the art can get a long way past retirement before 'fessing-up in an avuncular interview with a distinguished TV presenter.

Sorry, BH, but noting the article from the Economist in The Australian newspaper is NOT "a change in the air". News Ltd has always reported both sides of CAGW, at least as their editors see it

IF Fairfax Ltd (lefty newspapers) and the ABC (lefty equivalent of the BBC) had fairly noted the article from the Economist, then we would have a "change in the air". They did not, of course, and will not - as other posts have noted, Aus has a very long election campaign underway (likely until mid-September). One of the centrepieces is the removal (or not) of the current tax on CO2 emissions

So populist propaganda for either side is now a precious commodity. No quarter will be given, and the green forces will NEVER point to an article such as this one in the Economist

Thanks for all the wonderfully comic answers to my question. As I suspected, Pauchari is talking out of his ass. If we have a decade of cooling it will probably mean that AGW based on CO2 emissions will be consigned to the junk heap of historic scientific illusions.

=========

What I believe you are missing is that this is only partly a scientific illusion, such as the nonsense about N rays. It's also a political scheme, partly because it's driven by people who want to return us to the Middle Ages, but partly because it's assembled an apparatus which will fight for its existence and doesn't care much about the original reasons; if the old ones are crap, conjure up some new ones. Showing the rational basis for it is bollox is a necessary, but far from sufficient, condition to sweep it away.

Mackay is interesting and humorous reading, but the worst and most damaging nonsenses are those which have the full backing of states and have sought to change the structure of society and bend human natutre into an ideal mould it won't fit.

It's ridiculous to believe that anyone who's prominently supported this dross is going to fess up and say they were wrong and they were wrong; they'll either try to slip quietly away or find some new excuse why it's good for us and they were well intentioned.

Theduke- to read the full article open the page, copy and paste the headline into Google and open the first link. Ok for occasional overseas readers but as a local I got sick of it and forked out four bucks or so per month for online readership.

Ulike the ABC and The Age ( The Grauniad on the Yarra) The Australian does give coverage to both sides of the debate and so I decided to support their product.